The Herd Immunity Myth – Treating Our Children Like Cattle

When my oldest child was a baby, after telling the health visitor I didn’t vaccinate, she promptly exclaimed, “Oh well, she’s lucky as she has herd immunity from the vaccinated children to protect her!”

She then went on to say that not everyone had the luxury of my decision because if less than 95% of children were vaccinated, then it wouldn’t work anymore. I thought this was a silly concept because if vaccination truly worked, then any child who was vaccinated would be protected from disease, no matter how many ‘infectious’ unvaccinated kids there were, and if the 95% herd immunity figure was a genuine argument, it only points to one thing: the medical profession don’t really believe in the effectiveness of their own vaccines.

What Is The Herd Immunity Theory?

The herd immunity theory was originally coined in 1933 by a researcher called Hedrich. He had been studying measles patterns in the US between 1900-1931 (years before any vaccine was ever invented for measles) and he observed that epidemics of the illness only occurred when less than 68% of children had developed a natural immunity to it. This was based upon the principle that children build their own immunity after suffering with or being exposed to the disease. So the herd immunity theory was, in fact, about natural disease processes and nothing to do with vaccination. If 68% of the population were allowed to build their own natural defences, there would be no raging epidemic.

Later on, vaccinologists adopted the phrase and increased the figure from 68% to 95% with no scientific justification as to why, and then stated that there had to be 95% vaccine coverage to achieve immunity. Essentially, they took Hedrich’s study and manipulated it to promote their vaccination programmes.

(MONTHLY ESTIMATES OF THE CHILD POPULATION “SUSCEPTIBLE’ TO MEASLES, 1900-1931, BALTIMORE, MD, AW HEDRICH, American Journal of Epidemiology, May 1933 – Oxford University Press).

Why Vaccine Induced Herd Immunity is Flawed

If vaccination really immunises, then your vaccinated child will be immunised and therefore protected against any disease an unvaccinated child gets. If he isn’t, his shots didn’t work.

We should also examine whether or not the vaccines actually do provide immunity and in which populations epidemics occurred. Was it the unvaccinated children spreading disease as they would have parents believe? Or were those epidemics already in previously vaccinated people?

To do this I have listed several epidemics that have occurred in the last 100 years or so, including Smallpox, which medics claim that vaccination eradicated.

There was a Smallpox epidemic in Pittsburgh, USA, in 1924. This epidemic was started by a mandatory vaccination campaign in which people were imprisoned if they refused the shot. A health club then started a suit against Dr. Voux, who had headed the vaccination drive, for bringing disease upon the people. Legal council for the health club stated: ‘There have been NO deaths from Smallpox in Pittsburgh during the previous nine years from 1915 to 1924, including the years when there was no vaccination or re-vaccination, at all – and hence, no vaccine immunity.’

They pointed out that the vaccine campaign had caused 22 deaths and 112 cases of vaccine-induced Smallpox. (You can read a detailed history of vaccination in Eleanor McBean’s book, Vaccination Condemned, Better Life Research, 1981).

In Germany between 1947-1974, there were ten outbreaks of Smallpox including 94 people who had been previously ‘immunised’, who then became ill with the disease. (The Vaccination Nonsense, 2004 lectures, Dr. Gerhard Buchwald).

Here are some more recent epidemics in vaccinated populations:

In March 2006, 245 cases of mumps were confirmed in Iowa, US, where the law requires vaccination for school entry. Eleven year-old Will Hean of Davenport was diagnosed with mumps, and his 21 year old sister Kate.Both children had gotten the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, or MMR. “He had all the shots and everything. You don’t think you’re going to get the mumps after you’ve been inoculated,” said Will’s father, Wayne Hean. (2006, The Associated Press).

In 2002 an outbreak of Varicella (Chickenpox) occurred in a US daycare centre for fully vaccinated children. Varicella developed in 25 of 88 children (28.4 percent) between December 1, 2000, and January 11, 2001. A case occurred in a healthy child who had been vaccinated three years previously and who infected more than 50 percent of his classmates who had no history of varicella. The effectiveness of the vaccine was 44.0 percent against disease of any severity.Children who had been vaccinated three years or more before the outbreak were at greater risk for vaccine failure than those who had been vaccinated more recently.

Five cases of measles secondary vaccine failure with confirmed seroconversion after live measles vaccination. (Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Disease vol. 29, no. 2, 1997, pp.187-90): Two, five, seven and twelve years after vaccination with further attenuated live measles vaccine, three of five patients experienced modified measles infection, and the remaining two had typical measles. “This may be the first SVF case report that confirms the existence of completely waning immunity in recipients of the further attenuated live measles vaccines.”

And Whooping Cough:

Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 179, April 1999; 915-923. Temporal trends in the population structure of bordetella pertussis during 1949-1996 in a highly vaccinated population- “Despite the introduction of large-scale pertussis vaccination in 1953 and high vaccination coverage, pertussis is still an endemic disease in The Netherlands, with epidemic outbreaks occurring every 3-5 years.” One factor that might contribute to this is the ability of pertussis strains to adapt to vaccine-induced immunity, causing new strains of pertussis to re-emerge in this well-vaccinated population.

Just recently, Dr. Kari Simonsen, a pediatrician at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, USA, said one in five children who are vaccinated for whooping cough will still get the disease. She said efficacy of the vaccine was ‘comparatively low’, but said ‘It’s the best vaccine we can build to date.’ Despite admitting this, she still believes that parents should get the vaccine for their children.

At St. Robert Bellarmine School in west Omaha, 12 children had confirmed whooping cough, of those, most had been vaccinated.

The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services reported Thursday that the state has had 117 confirmed cases this year, up from 70 all of last year and 99 in 2006. There were 312 cases in Nebraska in 2005.

In Douglas County, 48 cases have been reported this year. Last year, 21 cases were reported.

This is in a country that gives five doses of the vaccine in the first four years of life and then another dose at 11 years of age!

Victor Plotkin – an epidemiologist from Lake County in the US has reported that there have been 82 cases of pertussis in the county so far this year.

‘Plotkin said the county did see very high numbers of cases during a nationwide outbreak of pertussis in 2004 and 2005. In 2004, there were 152 cases of pertussis and 135 cases in 2005. However, before that, pertussis cases in the county had averaged about 8 to 10 a year for many years.

Plotkin said the 2004 and 2005 pertussis outbreak appears that it may have been attributed to waning immunity among older children and adults who had not received booster shots. He said the most recent outbreak is a bit more puzzling because many of the children who are becoming ill are younger children who were recently vaccinated.

“Unfortunately, during this outbreak, even people that have been recently vaccinated are becoming sick anyway,” he said. “Their symptoms are milder, but they still can pass the bacteria along to others and make others sick.”

So What Happens if People don’t Vaccinate?

Are the unvaccinated really infectious?

According to Archives of Disease in Childhood, vol. 59, no. 2, February 1984, pp. 162-5): ‘Severity of whooping cough in England before and after the decline in pertussis immunisation’, “Since the decline of pertussis immunisation, hospital admission and death rates from whooping cough have fallen unexpectedly… The severity of attacks and the complication rates in children [who were] admitted to hospital were virtually unchanged’. – i.e. hospital admissions and death rates reduced when people WEREN’T getting vaccinated, meaning that avoiding shots is actually good for your child’s health and may save his life, and in those cases which were admitted to hospital, there were no increased complications in the unvaccinated group. Basically, at best the shots don’t make a difference and at worse, they kill or disable.

Another paper said that in the years 1977 to 1979 there was the largest outbreak of pertussis that they’d reported in 20 years, BUT:

1. The death rate was lower than in previous outbreaks
2. 35% of cases were in FULLY VACCINATED children
3. In the 1977 and 78 epidemics, 95% of UNvaccinated children ‘escaped infection’ or were not notified, which means that only 5% of unvaccinated children had confirmed pertussis.

“Estimates based upon notifications indicate that there was in the 1977-9 triennium in the United Kingdom the largest outbreak of whooping cough for 20 years or more….Deaths in which whooping cough was certified as the immediate of underlying cause were lower than in previous outbreaks….But, overall, about 35% of reported cases were children who had received three injections of triple vaccine. Acceptance of pertussis vaccine fell sharply in 1975 but about 95% of unvaccinated children in age groups 0-5, including the 1977 and the 1977 and 1978 birth cohorts, either escaped infection or were not notified.’

But there hasn’t been one double-blind controlled study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children since 1979 when one trial was carried out on BCG vaccine. Why? The medical profession say it is unethical to withhold vaccination from children. Therefore they cannot gain an accurate indication of what health is because everyone is getting the shots and suffering colds, ear infections, eczema, asthma and there is nothing to compare it with. If they did do a study, they would undoubtedly find the unvaccinated are healthier and maybe that it why they refuse.

Not one of my four daughters ever suffered from any of the common childhood ailments that so many of their friends did. Whilst all the babies in the nursery were catching colds every other week, my baby was happy and healthy. “She’s got an excellent immune system even though she’s never been vaccinated”, remarked the health visitor at her check. “No” I corrected, “She has an excellent immune system BECAUSE she’s never been vaccinated.”

Theory of Immune Memory Falls Apart as Stanford University Discovers that People are Immune to Pathogens they’ve Never Encountered

‘Although T cell memory is generally thought to require direct antigen exposure, we found an abundance of memory-phenotype cells (20%–90%, averaging over 50%) of CD4+ T cells specific to viral antigens in adults who had never been infected. These cells express the appropriate memory markers and genes, rapidly produce cytokines, and have clonally expanded. In contrast, the same T cell receptor (TCR) specificities in newborns are almost entirely naïve, which might explain the vulnerability of young children to infections. One mechanism for this phenomenon is TCR cross-reactivity to environmental antigens, and in support of this, we found extensive cross-recognition by HIV-1 and influenza-reactive T lymphocytes to other microbial peptides and expansion of one of these after influenza vaccination. Thus, the presence of these memory-phenotype T cells has significant implications for immunity to novel pathogens, child and adult health, and the influence of pathogen-rich versus hygienic environments.’

So, rather than pathogens being dangerous for you, they are actually good for you and help to develop your immune system!

Why the Social Responsibility Argument is Nonsense

The guilt trip method is a common vaccine marketing technique. If a parent is concerned, say about the ingredients in the shot for their child, they are told that they ‘have to’ vaccinate for the good of all other children to prevent the spread of disease in the community. This concept is flawed for a variety of reasons that I will explore here:

1. As stated above, diseases occur in 95% vaccinated communities and in outbreaks, the majority of those affected are already vaccinated. See pages https://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Diseases-In-The-Vaccinated and https://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Diseases-In-The-Vaccinated-Page-2 for regularly updated citations and articles about diseases in highly vaccinated populations.

2. Some vaccines are live and can shed in the child’s urine, excrement and saliva. Vaccine viruses can end up in our water supply by entering the sewage system and infect unvaccinated children, as reported in the ‘diseases in the vaccinated’ pages and https://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Vaccine-Shedding. Killed virus vaccines have also been known to mutate and spread disease. For instance, a 16 year old girl died of meningitis B after kissing her boyfriend who’d just had the meningitis C vaccine. Scientists proved the bug was a mutated version of the vaccine virus – New England Journal of Medicine,Volume 342:219-220, January 20, 2000, number 3.

So in actual fact, the vaccinated are the ones who carry the disease and risk infecting the unvaccinated, rather than the other way around.

3. Doctors argue that people should be vaccinated to ‘protect’ those who are immuno-suppressed through cancer or some other cause. However, as vaccines mutate and shed, then an immuno-compromised person is at risk by being around a recently vaccinated person. For instance, the Merck Manual says ‘Immunocompromised patients should not receive live-virus vaccines, which could provoke severe or fatal infections.
Occasionally, within 1 mo of (chickenpox) vaccination, a mild maculopapular or varicella-like rash develops. Patients who develop this rash should avoid contact with immunocompromised people until it resolves. Spread of the virus from vaccine recipients to susceptible people has been documented in < 1% of recipients but only from those who developed a rash.

The same manual also states that 15% of children vaccinated with MMR will get a mild form of measles. They say it is noncommunicable but as it is live, the same as varicella vaccine, it could confer the same risk to the immuno-compromised. My eldest daughter actually got measles from a baby who’d just come straight from the MMR clinic. She broke out with classic measles rash and other symptoms 14 days later, which is the incubation period for measles.

No other child had it and there were no other cases in the area. I believe that my daughter, although she was hardly ever sick, was immuno-compromised to an extent because she was bottle fed due to me nearly dying from an infected episiotomy at her birth. Not having the antibodies and live white blood cells from my milk would have put her at extra risk for picking up vaccine derived viruses – https://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Contraindications-people-who-shouldn-t-be-vaccinated-and-side-effects-From-The-Merck-Manual-vaccine-manufacturer-

I have had calls from nurses asking if it’s okay to vaccinate with live vaccines when there was a cancer ward next door and the patients were in direct contact. I said no. There are many documented cases of transmission to close contacts after live virus vaccine and the affect on an immuno-compromised person could be disasterous.

For instance, data for Flu Mist live flu vaccine spray states:

‘This medication should not be used if you have certain medical conditions. Before using this medicine, consult your doctor or pharmacist if you have: history of allergy to egg or egg products, immune deficiency.

After receiving the vaccine, you may shed influenza virus through the nose for up to 3 weeks. Tell laboratory personnel that you have used this medication. Nasal/oral specimens will test positive for influenza virus during this time. Also avoid close contact (e.g., same household) with people who are immunocompromised (e.g., HIV infection, cancer therapy) for at least 21 days. ‘

4. Vaccination is an invasive procedure on an otherwise healthy individual where no treatment is indicated. Vaccinations are not harmless sugar pills, they are drugs and like all drugs they have side-effects, sometimes serious. A person should never undergo any procedure involving risk for the benefit of someone else. Doctors argue that only ‘1 in a million’ are seriously injured or killed by vaccination, but if your child is that one, the risk to your child is 100%.

5. The responsibility of a parent is towards her own child. That is why we have something called Parental Responsibility (PR) in law. If your child is one of the 1 in 1000 children who suffer a seizure after MMR (https://www.immunisation.nhs.uk/Vaccines/MMR/Having_the_vaccination/after_mmr) then you will have essentially caused a seizure in your child to protect another child.
My own personal OPINION as a mother myself is that each parent is responsible for their own child and that child’s health and I will not risk my child’s health for a highly debatable perceived benefit to somebody else. If anything happened to my child as a result, I would be failing in my law given PR to protect my child.

Doctors argue that I am putting my children at risk by not vaccinating – but as stated further up the page, the majority of epidemics are occuring in the vaccinated as reported in many medical journals and newspapers.

6. The cancer patient who lives next door to you is not going to come around and give 24 hour a day care to your DPT brain injured child. He does not take social responsibility for your child – so why should your child take responsibility for him? According to Longmount Clinic, whole cell DPT causes brain damage in 1 in every 140,000 children – ‘Convulsions occur in 1 of 1750 vaccinations. Pertussis vaccine has also been associated with acute encephalopathy with permanent brain damage. Serious neurologic illness associated with whole cell pertussis vaccine is estimated at 1 in 140,000 – https://www.longmontclinic.com/Resources/A%20Guide%20to%20Childhood%20Immunizations

This is a truly SHOCKING figure. Although they argue that DTaP has now been developed that cuts the risk, but it only reduces MILD reactions, not serious ones. A data sheet for DTaP vaccine states:

‘Over the entire study period, 6 seizures were reported in the DAPTACEL™ group, 9 in the DT group and 3 in the whole-cell pertussis DTP group, for overall rates of 2.3, 3.5 and 1.4 per 1,000 vaccinees, respectively. One case of infantile spasms was reported in the DAPTACEL™ group.’ – so the seizures were actually more in the DTaP group than the whole cell group.

And:

‘The common local and systemic adverse experiences, after all 3 doses, for DAPTACEL™ and the participating acellular vaccines that have subsequently been licensed in the US were generally similar in type and frequency and were reduced in comparison to the whole-cell pertussis DTP vaccine.’

So the evidence suggests that only COMMON MILD side-effects are reduced, meaning a child’s risk from brain damage from a DPT containing vaccine could still be 1 in 140,000. – https://www.vaccineshoppe.com/image.cfm?image_type=product_pdfπ=286-10

7. Even if vaccines did work at preventing disease, there is no compensation for those who choose to partake in the programme. The UK government does not offer compensation to children injured or killed who were under the age of 2, and this is when most of the vaccines are given – https://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Vaccine-Damage-Payments-Unit

If the person was older than that at the time of injury or death, then you have a slim chance of getting compensated but even then, you have to prove you are 60% disabled or more and if you do, you will only get a maximum payout of £120,000 – which will not pay for the life time care of a severely injured person.

Most of the time, an injury or death is passed off as ‘coincidence’ – https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/swine-flu/6467984/People-will-die-after-swine-flu-vaccine—but-its-just-coincidence.html

If we are going to have a system of medicine where it is okay to sacrifice some for the benefit of the majority, which is the argument of vaccination, then we need to stand up and acknowledge those sacrificed and properly honour and compensate the families of the dead in the same way we honour our war dead.

Until such a system is implimented, parents choosing to ‘protect others’ via vaccination have no protection themselves if something goes wrong.

Is it Ethical to Kill Children to Save Children?

Should the government promote a medical intervention that undeniably causes death and serious injury to a minority in order to save the lives of the majority?

Vaccines are credited with saving the lives of millions of people from many diseases, but they have also taken lives. In Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed, Biased Science, and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights, Our Health, and Our Children, authors Louise Kuo Habakus and Mary Holland explain that the current vaccine program stakes the life of one child over another. No parents should be compelled to take actions that could cause their child to live a life of suffering, or even die.

Bill Gates recently stated on CNN that people who question the safety of vaccines are liars who are killing children: “So it’s an absolute lie that has killed thousands of kids… the people who go and engage in those anti-vaccine efforts — you know, they, they kill children.” In reality, it is the people who fail to question the safety of the current vaccine program who may be allowing innocent infants and children to suffer serious injuries, and even death. Could some of these injuries and deaths have been avoided?

The Herd Immunity Theory - Treating Our Children Like Cattle

When my oldest child was a baby, after telling the health visitor I didn’t vaccinate, she promptly exclaimed, “Oh well, she’s lucky as she has herd immunity from the vaccinated children to protect her!”
She then went on to say that not everyone had the luxury of my decision because if less than 95% of children were vaccinated, then it wouldn’t work anymore. I thought this was a silly concept because if vaccination truly worked, then any child who was vaccinated would be protected from disease, no matter how many ‘infectious’ unvaccinated kids there were, and if the 95% herd immunity figure was a genuine argument, it only points to one thing: the medical profession don’t really believe in the effectiveness of their own vaccines.

What Is The Herd Immunity Theory?

The herd immunity theory was originally coined in 1933 by a researcher called Hedrich. He had been studying measles patterns in the US between 1900-1931 (years before any vaccine was ever invented for measles) and he observed that epidemics of the illness only occurred when less than 68% of children had developed a natural immunity to it. This was based upon the principle that children build their own immunity after suffering with or being exposed to the disease. So the herd immunity theory was, in fact, about natural disease processes and nothing to do with vaccination. If 68% of the population were allowed to build their own natural defences, there would be no raging epidemic.
Later on, vaccinologists adopted the phrase and increased the figure from 68% to 95% with no scientific justification as to why, and then stated that there had to be 95% vaccine coverage to achieve immunity. Essentially, they took Hedrich’s study and manipulated it to promote their vaccination programmes.

(MONTHLY ESTIMATES OF THE CHILD POPULATION "SUSCEPTIBLE' TO MEASLES, 1900-1931, BALTIMORE, MD, AW HEDRICH, American Journal of Epidemiology, May 1933 - Oxford University Press). Full Text (PDF)

Why Vaccine Induced Herd Immunity is Flawed

If vaccination really immunises, then your vaccinated child will be immunised and therefore protected against any disease an unvaccinated child gets. If he isn’t, his shots didn’t work.
We should also examine whether or not the vaccines actually do provide immunity and in which populations epidemics occurred. Was it the unvaccinated children spreading disease as they would have parents believe? Or were those epidemics already in previously vaccinated people?
To do this I have listed several epidemics that have occurred in the last 100 years or so, including Smallpox, which medics claim that vaccination eradicated.

There was a Smallpox epidemic in Pittsburgh, USA, in 1924. This epidemic was started by a mandatory vaccination campaign in which people were imprisoned if they refused the shot. A health club then started a suit against Dr. Voux, who had headed the vaccination drive, for bringing disease upon the people. Legal council for the health club stated: ‘There have been NO deaths from Smallpox in Pittsburgh during the previous nine years from 1915 to 1924, including the years when there was no vaccination or re-vaccination, at all – and hence, no vaccine immunity.’
They pointed out that the vaccine campaign had caused 22 deaths and 112 cases of vaccine-induced Smallpox. (You can read a detailed history of vaccination in Eleanor McBean’s book, Vaccination Condemned, Better Life Research, 1981).

In Germany between 1947-1974, there were ten outbreaks of Smallpox including 94 people who had been previously ‘immunised’, who then became ill with the disease. (The Vaccination Nonsense, 2004 lectures, Dr. Gerhard Buchwald).

Here are some more recent epidemics in vaccinated populations:
In March 2006, 245 cases of mumps were confirmed in Iowa, US, where the law requires vaccination for school entry. Eleven year-old Will Hean of Davenport was diagnosed with mumps, and his 21 year old sister Kate.Both children had gotten the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, or MMR. “He had all the shots and everything. You don’t think you’re going to get the mumps after you’ve been inoculated,” said Will’s father, Wayne Hean. (2006, The Associated Press).

In 2002 an outbreak of Varicella (Chickenpox) occurred in a US daycare centre for fully vaccinated children. Varicella developed in 25 of 88 children (28.4 percent) between December 1, 2000, and January 11, 2001. A case occurred in a healthy child who had been vaccinated three years previously and who infected more than 50 percent of his classmates who had no history of varicella. The effectiveness of the vaccine was 44.0 percent against disease of any severity.Children who had been vaccinated three years or more before the outbreak were at greater risk for vaccine failure than those who had been vaccinated more recently.
Conclusions: In this outbreak, vaccination provided poor protection
against varicella. Longer interval since vaccination was associated with an increased risk of vaccine failure. Breakthrough infections in vaccinated, healthy persons can be as infectious as varicella in unvaccinated persons. (Outbreak of Varicella at a Day-Care Centre despite Vaccination)
2002
Karin Galil, M.D., M.P.H., Brent Lee, M.D., M.P.H., Tara Strine, M.P.H.,
Claire Carraher, R.N., Andrew L. Baughman, Ph.D., M.P.H., Melinda Eaton,
D.V.M., Jose Montero, M.D., and Jane Seward, M.B., B.S., M.P.H.).

And here’s some vaccine failures for measles: Five cases of measles secondary vaccine failure with confirmed seroconversion after live measles vaccination. (Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Disease vol. 29, no. 2, 1997, pp.187-90): Two, five, seven and twelve years after vaccination with further attenuated live measles vaccine, three of five patients experienced modified measles infection, and the remaining two had typical measles. "This may be the first SVF case report that confirms the existence of completely waning immunity in recipients of the further attenuated live measles vaccines."

And Whooping Cough: Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 179, April 1999; 915-923. Temporal trends in the population structure of bordetella pertussis during 1949-1996 in a highly vaccinated population- "Despite the introduction of large-scale pertussis vaccination in 1953 and high vaccination coverage, pertussis is still an endemic disease in The Netherlands, with epidemic outbreaks occurring every 3-5 years." One factor that might contribute to this is the ability of pertussis strains to adapt to vaccine-induced immunity, causing new strains of pertussis to re-emerge in this well-vaccinated population.

Just recently, Dr. Kari Simonsen, a pediatrician at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, USA, said one in five children who are vaccinated for whooping cough will still get the disease. She said efficacy of the vaccine was 'comparatively low', but said
'It's the best vaccine we can build to date.'
Despite admitting this, she still believes that parents should get the vaccine for their children.

At St. Robert Bellarmine School in west Omaha, 12 children had confirmed whooping cough, of those, most had been vaccinated.

The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services reported Thursday that the state has had 117 confirmed cases this year, up from 70 all of last year and 99 in 2006. There were 312 cases in Nebraska in 2005.

In Douglas County, 48 cases have been reported this year. Last year, 21 cases were reported.

This is in a country that gives five doses of the vaccine in the first four years of life and then another dose at 11 years of age!

Victor Plotkin - an epidemiologist from Lake County in the US has reported that there have been 82 cases of pertussis in the county so far this year.

'Plotkin said the county did see very high numbers of cases during a nationwide outbreak of pertussis in 2004 and 2005. In 2004, there were 152 cases of pertussis and 135 cases in 2005. However, before that, pertussis cases in the county had averaged about 8 to 10 a year for many years.

Plotkin said the 2004 and 2005 pertussis outbreak appears that it may have been attributed to waning immunity among older children and adults who had not received booster shots. He said the most recent outbreak is a bit more puzzling because many of the children who are becoming ill are younger children who were recently vaccinated.

"Unfortunately, during this outbreak, even people that have been recently vaccinated are becoming sick anyway," he said. "Their symptoms are milder, but they still can pass the bacteria along to others and make others sick."

According to Archives of Disease in Childhood, vol. 59, no. 2, February 1984, pp. 162-5): ‘Severity of whooping cough in England before and after the decline in pertussis immunisation’, "Since the decline of pertussis immunisation, hospital admission and death rates from whooping cough have fallen unexpectedly… The severity of attacks and the complication rates in children [who were] admitted to hospital were virtually unchanged'. – i.e. hospital admissions and death rates reduced when people WEREN’T getting vaccinated, meaning that avoiding shots is actually good for your child’s health and may save his life, and in those cases which were admitted to hospital, there were no increased complications in the unvaccinated group. Basically, at best the shots don’t make a difference and at worse, they kill or disable.

Another paper said that in the years 1977 to 1979 there was the largest outbreak of pertussis that they'd reported in 20 years, BUT:

1. The death rate was lower than in previous outbreaks
2. 35% of cases were in FULLY VACCINATED children
3. In the 1977 and 78 epidemics, 95% of UNvaccinated children 'escaped infection' or were not notified, which means that only 5% of unvaccinated children had confirmed pertussis.

"Estimates based upon notifications indicate that there was in the 1977-9 triennium in the United Kingdom the largest outbreak of whooping cough for 20 years or more....Deaths in which whooping cough was certified as the immediate of underlying cause were lower than in previous outbreaks....But, overall, about 35% of reported cases were children who had received three injections of triple vaccine. Acceptance of pertussis vaccine fell sharply in 1975 but about 95% of unvaccinated children in age groups 0-5, including the 1977 and the 1977 and 1978 birth cohorts, either escaped infection or were not notified.'

But there hasn't been one double-blind controlled study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children since 1979 when one trial was carried out on BCG vaccine. Why? The medical profession say it is unethical to withhold vaccination from children. Therefore they cannot gain an accurate indication of what health is because everyone is getting the shots and suffering colds, ear infections, eczema, asthma and there is nothing to compare it with. If they did do a study, they would undoubtedly find the unvaccinated are healthier and maybe that it why they refuse.

Not one of my four daughters ever suffered from any of the common childhood ailments that so many of their friends did. Whilst all the babies in the nursery were catching colds every other week, my baby was happy and healthy. “She’s got an excellent immune system even though she’s never been vaccinated”, remarked the health visitor at her check.”No” I corrected, “She has an excellent immune system BECAUSE she’s never been vaccinated.”

Theory of Immune Memory Falls Apart as Stanford University Discovers that People are Immune to Pathogens they've Never Encountered

'Although T cell memory is generally thought to require direct antigen exposure, we found an abundance of memory-phenotype cells (20%–90%, averaging over 50%) of CD4+ T cells specific to viral antigens in adults who had never been infected. These cells express the appropriate memory markers and genes, rapidly produce cytokines, and have clonally expanded. In contrast, the same T cell receptor (TCR) specificities in newborns are almost entirely naïve, which might explain the vulnerability of young children to infections. One mechanism for this phenomenon is TCR cross-reactivity to environmental antigens, and in support of this, we found extensive cross-recognition by HIV-1 and influenza-reactive T lymphocytes to other microbial peptides and expansion of one of these after influenza vaccination. Thus, the presence of these memory-phenotype T cells has significant implications for immunity to novel pathogens, child and adult health, and the influence of pathogen-rich versus hygienic environments.'

So, rather than pathogens being dangerous for you, they are actually good for you and help to develop your immune system!

Why the Social Responsibility Argument is Nonsense

The guilt trip method is a common vaccine marketing technique. If a parent is concerned, say about the ingredients in the shot for their child, they are told that they 'have to' vaccinate for the good of all other children to prevent the spread of disease in the community. This concept is flawed for a variety of reasons that I will explore here:

1. As stated above, diseases occur in 95% vaccinated communities and in outbreaks, the majority of those affected are already vaccinated. See pages https://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Diseases-In-The-Vaccinated and https://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Diseases-In-The-Vaccinated-Page-2 for regularly updated citations and articles about diseases in highly vaccinated populations.

2. Some vaccines are live and can shed in the child's urine, excrement and saliva. Vaccine viruses can end up in our water supply by entering the sewage system and infect unvaccinated children, as reported in the 'diseases in the vaccinated' pages and https://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Vaccine-Shedding. Killed virus vaccines have also been known to mutate and spread disease. For instance, a 16 year old girl died of meningitis B after kissing her boyfriend who'd just had the meningitis C vaccine. Scientists proved the bug was a mutated version of the vaccine virus - New England Journal of Medicine,Volume 342:219-220, January 20, 2000, number 3.

So in actual fact, the vaccinated are the ones who carry the disease and risk infecting the unvaccinated, rather than the other way around.

3. Doctors argue that people should be vaccinated to 'protect' those who are immuno-suppressed through cancer or some other cause. However, as vaccines mutate and shed, then an immuno-compromised person is at risk by being around a recently vaccinated person. For instance, the Merck Manual says 'Immunocompromised patients should not receive live-virus vaccines, which could provoke severe or fatal infections.
Occasionally, within 1 mo of (chickenpox) vaccination, a mild maculopapular or varicella-like rash develops. Patients who develop this rash should avoid contact with immunocompromised people until it resolves. Spread of the virus from vaccine recipients to susceptible people has been documented in < 1% of recipients but only from those who developed a rash.

The same manual also states that 15% of children vaccinated with MMR will get a mild form of measles. They say it is noncommunicable but as it is live, the same as varicella vaccine, it could confer the same risk to the immuno-compromised. My eldest daughter actually got measles from a baby who'd just come straight from the MMR clinic. She broke out with classic measles rash and other symptoms 14 days later, which is the incubation period for measles.

No other child had it and there were no other cases in the area. I believe that my daughter, although she was hardly ever sick, was immuno-compromised to an extent because she was bottle fed due to me nearly dying from an infected episiotomy at her birth. Not having the antibodies and live white blood cells from my milk would have put her at extra risk for picking up vaccine derived viruses - https://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Contraindications-people-who-shouldn-t-be-vaccinated-and-side-effects-From-The-Merck-Manual-vaccine-manufacturer-

I have had calls from nurses asking if it's okay to vaccinate with live vaccines when there was a cancer ward next door and the patients were in direct contact. I said no. There are many documented cases of transmission to close contacts after live virus vaccine and the affect on an immuno-compromised person could be disasterous.

For instance, data for Flu Mist live flu vaccine spray states:

'This medication should not be used if you have certain medical conditions. Before using this medicine, consult your doctor or pharmacist if you have: history of allergy to egg or egg products, immune deficiency.

After receiving the vaccine, you may shed influenza virus through the nose for up to 3 weeks. Tell laboratory personnel that you have used this medication. Nasal/oral specimens will test positive for influenza virus during this time. Also avoid close contact (e.g., same household) with people who are immunocompromised (e.g., HIV infection, cancer therapy) for at least 21 days. '

4. Vaccination is an invasive procedure on an otherwise healthy individual where no treatment is indicated. Vaccinations are not harmless sugar pills, they are drugs and like all drugs they have side-effects, sometimes serious. A person should never undergo any procedure involving risk for the benefit of someone else. Doctors argue that only '1 in a million' are seriously injured or killed by vaccination, but if your child is that one, the risk to your child is 100%.

5. The responsibility of a parent is towards her own child. That is why we have something called Parental Responsibility (PR) in law. If your child is one of the 1 in 1000 children who suffer a seizure after MMR (https://www.immunisation.nhs.uk/Vaccines/MMR/Having_the_vaccination/after_mmr) then you will have essentially caused a seizure in your child to protect another child.
My own personal OPINION as a mother myself is that each parent is responsible for their own child and that child's health and I will not risk my child's health for a highly debatable perceived benefit to somebody else. If anything happened to my child as a result, I would be failing in my law given PR to protect my child.

Doctors argue that I am putting my children at risk by not vaccinating - but as stated further up the page, the majority of epidemics are occuring in the vaccinated as reported in many medical journals and newspapers.

6. The cancer patient who lives next door to you is not going to come around and give 24 hour a day care to your DPT brain injured child. He does not take social responsibility for your child - so why should your child take responsibility for him? According to Longmount Clinic, whole cell DPT causes brain damage in 1 in every 140,000 children - 'Convulsions occur in 1 of 1750 vaccinations. Pertussis vaccine has also been associated with acute encephalopathy with permanent brain damage. Serious neurologic illness associated with whole cell pertussis vaccine is estimated at 1 in 140,000 - https://www.longmontclinic.com/Resources/A%20Guide%20to%20Childhood%20Immunizations

This is a truly SHOCKING figure. Although they argue that DTaP has now been developed that cuts the risk, but it only reduces MILD reactions, not serious ones. A data sheet for DTaP vaccine states:

'Over the entire study period, 6 seizures were reported in the DAPTACEL™ group, 9 in the DT group and 3 in the
whole-cell pertussis DTP group, for overall rates of 2.3, 3.5 and 1.4 per 1,000 vaccinees, respectively. One case of infantile spasms was
reported in the DAPTACEL™ group.' - so the seizures were actually more in the DTaP group than the whole cell group.

And:

'The common local and systemic adverse experiences, after all 3
doses, for DAPTACEL™ and the participating acellular vaccines that have subsequently been licensed in the US were generally similar
in type and frequency and were reduced in comparison to the whole-cell pertussis DTP vaccine.'

So the evidence suggests that only COMMON MILD side-effects are reduced, meaning a child's risk from brain damage from a DPT containing vaccine could still be 1 in 140,000. - https://www.vaccineshoppe.com/image.cfm?image_type=product_pdfπ=286-10

7. Even if vaccines did work at preventing disease, there is no compensation for those who choose to partake in the programme. The UK government does not offer compensation to children injured or killed who were under the age of 2, and this is when most of the vaccines are given - https://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Vaccine-Damage-Payments-Unit

If the person was older than that at the time of injury or death, then you have a slim chance of getting compensated but even then, you have to prove you are 60% disabled or more and if you do, you will only get a maximum payout of £120,000 - which will not pay for the life time care of a severely injured person.

Most of the time, an injury or death is passed off as 'coincidence' - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/swine-flu/6467984/People-will-die-after-swine-flu-vaccine---but-its-just-coincidence.html

If we are going to have a system of medicine where it is okay to sacrifice some for the benefit of the majority, which is the argument of vaccination, then we need to stand up and acknowledge those sacrificed and properly honour and compensate the families of the dead in the same way we honour our war dead.

Until such a system is implimented, parents choosing to 'protect others' via vaccination have no protection themselves if something goes wrong.

Is it Ethical to Kill Children to Save Children?

Should the government promote a medical intervention that undeniably causes death and serious injury to a minority in order to save the lives of the majority?

Vaccines are credited with saving the lives of millions of people from many diseases, but they have also taken lives. In Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed, Biased Science, and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights, Our Health, and Our Children, authors Louise Kuo Habakus and Mary Holland explain that the current vaccine program stakes the life of one child over another. No parents should be compelled to take actions that could cause their child to live a life of suffering, or even die.

Bill Gates recently stated on CNN that people who question the safety of vaccines are liars who are killing children: "So it's an absolute lie that has killed thousands of kids... the people who go and engage in those anti-vaccine efforts -- you know, they, they kill children." In reality, it is the people who fail to question the safety of the current vaccine program who may be allowing innocent infants and children to suffer serious injuries, and even death. Could some of these injuries and deaths have been avoided?

Read more: https://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/224630#ixzz1EFr0RNOc

VAN UK's Comment: We do NOT agree that vaccines prevent disease (see diseases in the vaccinated pages).

Pro-Vaccine Person Admits Vaccine Damaged and Killed Children are Worth the Sacrifice

For example, either as a parent or a child, most likely you have been exposed to programs that contain some of these issues. Inoculating children to prevent infectious disease transmission is good for society from both health and financial perspectives, but some initially healthy children may suffer adverse reactions, injury, or even death. For vaccines, the enormous societal benefits trump the tragedies of the few. And in order to keep the vaccine costs affordable, the U.S. government administrates and pays all vaccine compensation claims through its Vaccine Lawsuit Injury Compensation program. Inoculation requirements and the accepted reasons to opt out vary by state. In 2011, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program received over 1,000 new claims and awarded 250 plaintiffs more than $228 million for injuries and deaths from the vaccines administered to both adults and children.

There is no doubt that vaccines have the potential to do harm to a very small portion of the population. But just look at what vaccines have done for us. Polio is no longer a threat in most of the world. Measles, chicken pox, pertussis (whooping cough), and of course smallpox, the former serial killer, have been virtually eliminated. The lives saved and dollar benefits from vaccines are hard to calculate, but it’s safe to say that these and other immunizations have greatly improved the quantity and quality of life for millions of people -- at the tragic, yet accepted cost of a few.

Society DOES NOT CARE about your child if they are injured or killed by a vaccine, they are acceptable sacrifice for the vaccine programme!

COMMENTS ON CHILD SACRIFICE ARTICLE, INCLUDING MINE

Ginger Taylor

The lives saved and dollar benefits from vaccines are hard to calculate, but it’s safe to say that these and other immunizations have greatly improved the quantity and quality of life for millions of people -- at the tragic, yet accepted cost of a few. " I am the mother of a vaccine injured child (not compensated by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which is largely corrupt and uses every excuse, valid and invalid, to actually prevent from recognizing and compensating vaccine injury), and as shocking as this might be to hear, I am happy to see this article published. To actually see in black and white, what parents of vaccine injured children know is true, that our children are not valued by society and are considered "acceptable losses" for the gain you have gotten from the vaccine program, is a refreshing change from the lies usually told surrounding vaccine injury... either that vaccine injury does not exist, or that those who are vaccine injured are valued, while only given feigned compassion and lip service rather than the help they need and deserve. To know that you don't care what happens to the minority (including my precious son) as long as it works out for the fortunate is of course, absolutely morally repugnant... but the fact that you will admit, out loud, that killing children and giving them brain damage is acceptable to you, actually gives people fair warning that this is what they are getting involved in when they choose to participate in the current vaccine program. It is a huge wake up call that their child is merely a commodity to the world, and the vaccine program, and when they suffer adverse reactions, they will be simply thrown away. Please take this statement at face value, because I don't mean this sarcastically at all. Thank you for being honest in your devaluation of my son and of those vulnerable to vaccine injury. It is going to save the lives and health of a lot of children whose parents will see what the world really thinks of their kids, and prevent them from becoming used for cannon fodder by being drafted into public health's "war on communicable disease". I wish more people were as honest, so that parents could truly have informed consent before their kids get hurt.

Dave

The vaccine injury program has paid out over $2 billion dollars in damages caused by vaccines, and the VAERS reporting system admittedly only captures a small fraction of the total cases of vaccine injuries. This does not include the cost to families, schools, social services, and social security... which should be, but is not, included in any statistical analysis. There is little to no incentive for vaccine manufacturers to improved vaccine safety (let alone study it) because vaccine manufacturers are granted immunity by the government. So from your perspective, at what point is vaccine injury statistically unacceptable?

Joe

The number of hospitalizations caused by intussusception did not significantly decrease after the rotavirus vaccine was reintroduced in the United States, according to study findings. In other words researcher Paul Offitt that you all trusted, made a vaccine that made him 50 million dollars that is completely worthless. Ah! but that's not the whole story,the FDA said they were going to suspend the GSK version of the Rotavirus vaccine. Because in their words,the research had found pig virus bits 1 in the vaccine. They said we do not know the short term, or the long term effects. So they were suspending the GSK version. Weeks later, the same researcher found in the Merck version the same. But, with a sinister twist that sounds so much worse. You see, he not only found Pig virus bits 1 but also 2 and it came with statement from the FDA in concerning it's suspension. We do not know the short term or the long term effects,but we think the good out weighs the bad. So they decided, to go back to business as usual. Reinstating the questionable vaccine. What I left out, was this. They were told at the FDA, that pig virus bits 2 causes wasting in pigs such as has been seen as aids in humans. So knowing this! they thought the Good out weighed the Bad? And now we find out the vaccine, is useless? in that it failed to slow the hospitalizations for intussuseption. In other words, it was a junk vaccine that has killed children. When Paul Offitt was told how many children died taking the vaccine. He said, I thought it would have been more. I'm pleased. This is from, the report. “The reintroduction of rotavirus vaccine since 2006 has not resulted in a detectable increase in the number of hospital discharges for intussusception among US infants,” the researchers concluded. The safety of our children, was never! on the radar of the FDA CDC or the AAP concerning this junk vaccine, in light of the dangerous findings. One would think, when they were charged with the safety of the Nations most precious resource. [ the American children ]. That the agencies, might want to err on the side of caution. Anyway that's what one might think, but as you can see by their actions. That would not be the case.

Kris

Mr Jones Thanks for publicly admitting that you don't give a *#** about my son or the millions of children affected by the governments so called safe vaccine program. Seriously?? I do not think you know or understand the power of the autism community and how many families are actually affected by vaccines. Why, you may have just insulted an important colleague or worse yet, someone whom you want to do business with in the future. As stated so eloquently by Joe, the government's vaccine program is actually making our children sick and costing the tax payers more in the end. I don't think you have done your Cost Benefit Analysis properly... it sounds like you need some real education in this department. Maybe you can talk with that colleague you just offended. Like many parents of autistic children, I've worked the last four years to put my son on the path to recovery from his vaccine injury. I had a 3 year old that did not speak and would hand flap and head bang. I've been shoulder deep in the war inside of my son's body and have paid the price emotionally and financially. Today, he is in a typical 1st grade class room and many people would not know he is autistic. Each day I sit down to my desk and see the note on the wall I've written to myself - "NO ACCEPTABLE LOSES". You know, I was actually feeling pretty good about our progress the other day too... then I had to read your article. So Mr. Jones, I would like to tell you on behalf of my son in this public forum that you are WRONG - he is NOT an acceptable loss. My son has inspired his entire family to eat healthy, change their diets and say no to the processed food industry. Because of my son many of my friends, family and co-workers are thinking twice about vaccinating and doing their home work. He has touched countless lives and because of my son I am a better person. I hope that one day you will be influenced by an Acceptable Loss and become enlightened on the subject. My religion teaches me to be compassionate and patient - so my son and I will wait on pins and needles for your apology in this public forum.

Lisa

I am a CFO for a public company in Canada. I am also the mother of a 7 year old boy with Autism. It is very easy to talk about acceptable losses when it doesn't really affect you, when you don't have to look those parent in the eye who live, day in and day out, with those "acceptable losses". Try spending a week, or a month, or an hour in their shoes and then tell me those losses are acceptable. Try telling me that you still ascribe to that philosophy when it's your child or grandchild who is the "acceptable loss". Look me in the eye and tell me then that you still believe in those losses. Business and government use terms like cost benefit analysis, risk reduction, finite resources…acceptable losses…. because they don’t have to live the consequences of those decisions. What has our society become when a child’s life is a statistical number on a piece of paper…an acceptable loss. These children are not disposable! No child is disposable. I hope you never know the pain, exhaustion, grief and devastation of an “acceptable loss”, I would never wish that on anyone (no matter how morally bankrupt…that’s another good business word), but if you do, then, maybe then, you can look me in the eye and tell me you still believe in the concept of an acceptable loss…I doubt you would be so certain then.

Chris

Mr. Jones, Thank you for you pompous, yet honest words pertaining to vaccinations. As the father of a vaccine damaged child, it is refreshing to hear someone actually admit they are a heartless jerk. I watched my happy, loving, giggling child change the day he received nine vaccinations in one day. I was told by medical professionals that vaccines were perfectly safe. Within hours of these injections, I watched my happy, perfectly growing little boy change, never to be the same again. This child ran a high fever, and cried for six straight days. He no longer played with his favorite toys, ever again. He no longer made eye contact, he no longer smiled, he no longer giggled. As far as vaccinations being a necessary evil at the expense of children like mine, and well worth the cost associated, I beg to disagree. I cannot tell you how much work my wife and myself have missed attempting to help this child recover from the damage done. These are costs you, in your infinite wisdom do not include in your calculations. Not to mentions all the other disease growing at an epidemic rate. These numbers are not included in your calculations, Mr. Jones, CEO. Not to mention the healthcare costs associated with all these diseases that people deal with everyday. So, thanks for caring and being such a humanitarian.

Robin

The vaccine industry was given indemnity from civil lawsuits by Congress in the 80s. The vaccine industry is the only industry, to my knowledge, in which those responsible for making a product that has harmed people cannot be held accountable thru the regular court system. That's because they were deemed too important to fail long before any banks were. The recent US Supreme Court ruling in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth would seem to have settled this once and for all -- that parents of the vaccine injured cannot get justice in a regular court even after they've gotten the brush off by the special (kangaroo) vaccine court. What do you call it when profits are made while people are being knowingly destroyed, and the truth is being censored? The story of vaccines has never been covered fairly in the main stream media, between pharmaceutical commercials on the nightly news. I was brought up to believe that the minority had rights in our country. It's no longer the case. What's happening in the US currently with the vaccine program is nothing short of genocide.

Joanna (Myself, Founder VAN UK)

We were supposed to have stopped child sacrifice along with gladiating. As a vaccine injured person who suffered auditory processing disabilities that are part of ASD as a result of BCG vaccine, I find your article insulting. I suffered terrible pain every day for 11 years, I couldn't bear any noise at all, even talking. I couldn't hold down a job, I couldn't socialise, I couldn't even go to the shops because the piped music hurt me. I couldn't bear the sound of my own baby's cry, it hurt to lie down at night and doctors spent YEARS denying my symptoms until they finally diagnosed me. It wrecked my relationships and my financial status. In short, my life went down the toilet because of one shot with a vaccine that was later withdrawn for being ineffective. I now have multiple inflammatory and auto-immune disabilities. And you have just told me all my years of suffering were worth it to protect everyone else. If you truly believe that human sacrifice is acceptable in 2012, perhaps you should go and vaccinate yourself. As for my children, they are not disposible for the good of others, so they will never be vaccinated.

WE ARE EXPECTED TO BE 'SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE' AND VACCINATE BUT THE AUTHORITIES DO NOT GIVE TWO HOOTS IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG - THEY WILL NOT BE SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE IN RETURN.